McCain Changes Tack On SCOTUS: ‘Of Course’ He’ll Vote On HRC's Nominee

[DonViejo]

Source: Talking Points Memo

Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) office on Monday walked back his suggestion that Senate Republicans could continue to stonewall the confirmation of a ninth Supreme Court justice if Hillary Clinton is elected, insisting he will cast a vote on any nominee the next president puts forward.

"Senator McCain believes you can only judge people by their record and Hillary Clinton has a clear record of supporting liberal judicial nominees,” McCain spokesman Rachael Dean told TPM in a statement. “That being said, Senator McCain will, of course, thoroughly examine the record of any Supreme Court nominee put before the Senate and vote for or against that individual based on their qualifications as he has done throughout his career."

The Arizona senator said in a radio interview earlier Monday that GOP lawmakers would remain “united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up.”

The late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat has remained empty since his death in February. Republicans have refused to hold hearings for President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, making the unprecedented case that the next president should be able to decide who is nominated to the Supreme Court.

###

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/mccain-will-vote-on-clinton-supreme-court-nominee

[TXCritter]

1. goddamn right you will you obstructionist ****

[truthisfreedom]

2. Alzheimer's kicking in irregularly, John?

Not sure what position to take at any given moment?

[msanthrope]

3. Man, the internal polling on the obstructionist stance must have sucked. nt

[Va Lefty]

4. It would be so nice if the voters of Arizona retired him.

Then he would have his Sundays free. No more talk shows!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

13. Leaving him plenty of time for warm milk

And sponge baths.

[bucolic_frolic]

5. The GOP are not 'faithfully executing' the duties of their office

as they swore an oath on the Bible to do

Good Christians, eh?

[bagelsforbreakfast]

14. Could this be construed as a conspiracy?

And can't force be construed as Republican party dictates? Doesn't have to be actual "violence" - there are other kinds of force...


18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so

[wordpix]

16. how about their January 2009 meeting to obstruct everything/anything advocated by a president?

Particularly our black pres.

That to me is a conspiracy to "knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States."

But the statute does specify "by force or violence"

[Peaches999]

20. No, a legislator voting "No" is not advocating overthrow of the government

Leave it to Trump to spout this nonsense. We don't do this.

[onehandle]

6. Two-faced. nt

[longship]

7. If the Clinton campaign doesn't mention this, they're stupid.

She's going to AZ this week. I sure would mention it. Prominently.

[Missn-Hitch]

15. Exactly. I think she will.

[Dawson Leery]

8. Yellow.

Can't even stand by his own convictions.

[pangaia]

9. Sounds like his 'office' should run for the senate instead of him.

[Ohioblue22]

10. Bullshit he didn't walk it back this is what they plan on doing

They're just waiting for a convenient excuse

[EV_Ares]

11. You & I are on the same page. When you read what they are saying the repubs have not changed their

mind. They just cleaned it up because & I don't know who or whatever but evidently this did not go well. I think the public would be outraged if they really do try to just block a nominee with a new POtUS elected by the people & I don't think people want them to play games with it either.

[dalton99]

12. Flip flopping as bad as Trump

[displacedtexan]

17. Hmm. A Black man and a woman nominate justices, and Republicans turn up their noses.

This alone could swing the mid-terms in 2018.

It's only because R's are losing e senate that they're pretending to be reasonable.

[bighart]

18. Should this tatctic actually be put in play

I think all of the senators participating in blocking supreme court judicial nominees should be recalled.

Utter failure to do the job as dictated by the CONSTITUTION should cause all of them to loose their seats.

[wordpix]

19. hey Senator POW-wishy washy

You almost died "for your country" and now it's clear that means obstructing a presidential SCOTUS nominee before he/she is even named. That was Monday and Tuesday you say you'll examine a nominee's record. Big of you.

McCain---glad he's not president